Hi, I'm gonna upgrade my PC in just few weeks. And I got two options for it.

Things I got : bout 1,400$, Zotac 1060 6GB, SSD, HDD

1 : I7 8700K with Hackintosh
- My friend recommended it for real, and he got also Hackintosh on 4790K.
His suggestion is so interesting to me. Get I7 8700K, insert Win10, and buy another SSD for Hackintosh. Then I can use dual system for it.
And he will introduce me dealer who made his system. It costs about 130$ for High Sierra.

But, because of the Intel's new price policy, it cost more money, and I have to save money from cooler.
And I have little nervous about this 'dual' system's stability.
...and 8700K's core numbers too!
Ah, and I think I couldn't afford overclock.

2 : Ryzen 2700X with Win10 Pro
- Best price and options for now. But there's no options about Mac system for Ryzen.
If I got this, I can afford 470x board and KRAKEN X72 cooler. Then PBO will give me true peace.
But I have doubt about windows yet. Maybe it could be my fantasy about Mac system.
I have never used Mac system for long time but just few hours for mix a song but it was impressive.
..and I could use my iPad more usefully.

So I need help. Is Ryzen system great for Cubase? I believe Ryzen, but can't believe Microsoft.
is it worth?

Being honest with you, an OS choice is related to your feeling, I'd rather work on a Linux instead of working on Windows or Mac, but as you know, Cubase can be installed either on Windows or Mac OS
Looking at your post, you seems to seek the best performance, so here's some advices I can give you :

- Hackintosh seems to be really powerfull (Mac OS without Apple hardware clamping), but keep in mind that it's not an official OS, so you may need to wait before some critical update, and support is kinda random as it came from the Hackintosh community, and not from Apple

- Windows is kind'off a standart, it is know for having some random trouble, but you can expect quick update if something really goes wrong on their side, and since alot of people use it, finding out how to solve an issue can be easier

-Dualboot can be pretty stable when done correctly, and usefull since some app run only on some OS (eg: Gaming on Windows and working on Hackintosh). Just keep in mind that the maintenance of the computer will be harder

- If you seek the best performance, go on userbenchmark.com and try out your builds, you'll know how they'll perform for a workstation (It's in theory, but the stats are pretty accurate)

To answer the question, yes, Ryzen CPU are suitable for Cubase, as long as the overall build isn't just related to the CPU, but you've got an SSD, 6GB GPU and so, you can think about an ASIO sound card too (You can look forward to m-audio's one, not really needed, but it's better to got a dedicated one)

In addition to what Ed said, I think the following is likely correct (looking at the data):

- If you're sticking to mixing the 2700x will be a better value considering that you get a cooler included, and also assuming you already have a video card you'll be using or have decided you're not going to use the integrated graphics in the 8700k.

- If you're using VST instruments and need low latency then the 8700k will perform better.

- If you need integrated graphics then you can't use Ryzen 2700x.

- If at some point you want to use Thunderbolt then don't use AMD.

- If you want a more likely future ability to upgrade just the CPU (and keep the socket/motherboard) then AMD is probably a better option.

- If you want to use a Store MI type storage solution then use AMD.

PS: I have a Ryzen 7 1700 (no "x") and the included cooler allows me to overclock from 3.2GHz all cores to 3.7GHz without any problems. I would guess that you won't need a separate cooler for the 2700x, at least not in the short term if you're not going to start off overclocking it.

Hi, just curious how can you tell you have projects that have realtime audio processing? My projects are audio files with VST inserts. The reason I ask, I am also looking at possibly moving to a Ryzen 7 Pro.

So what they do is run "the DAWBench Vi test". It's "based on stacking up Kontakt instances which allows us to test the memory response through sample loading along the CPU as we see with the DSP test."

So the idea I think is that virtual instruments need low latency performance because when you record with them running you need that low latency so it feels right. More of those running at the same time then would mean better performance when recording.

On the other hand I don't actually know if there's any benchmark test that literally tests a specific setup of plugins / virtual instruments while recording X audio tracks and/or X midi tracks.

So, as far as I can see there seems to be some questions about how well we're really evaluating that - but - when you're talking about just straight up playback and mixing, meaning playing back a bunch of tracks with VST inserted plugins (not instruments), then the tests are a bit more telling. And it just so happens AMD does well there. Very well in fact.

So let's say you're doing that and 256 samples buffer is fine (I've used at least twice than that): If you look at the "dsp" chart on the page that Ed linked to you'll see for example how the most expensive Intel CPU is currently $1,300 on Newegg whereas the most expensive Threadripper is $500. And if you then look at performance it's 96% of the Intel performance at 38% of the cost! The 8700k is priced really well here. So it actually seems that if the only options are the 8700k and the 2700x for example then the 8700k wins.

So it comes down to looking at the platforms and total cost. With the 8700k I think you get an integrated graphics chip which is nice if you're using that instead of dedicated graphics... with the 2700x you get an included cooler... with the Threadripper you get way more performance, but with a more expensive motherboard....

---------------

All of the above said we have of course the new AMD chips coming out in less than a month when we should see new reviews. The latest leak on the 16-core "regular" desktop CPU from AMD that is coming out this fall seems really incredible to be honest. If it's true it's going to be a killer CPU that's virtually impossible to beat... Well, that or the 12-core...

As soon as you use plug-ins and play back audio, it's real time processing.

I kind of think that's a bit of a sort of vague statement though, even though it seems clear.

First of all, while it is literally true that you can instantiate plugins and play back audio at maximum buffers that's actually not what people are saying Intel is clearly better at in general, it's what I mentioned above.

Secondly, even though it's true that Intel currently has the best chips for audio those are also very expensive. Like, very, expensive. So the real question is what the best value is at the budget you have set for your build. To most users I'm betting it's not going to be Intel if it's just plain old play back and mixing.

If this is the copper cooler and fan thingy that shipped in the past, those are a piece of crap. I built for my kid a gaming PC with AMD CPU (Piledriver or Bulldozer series, i cant recall now) and I got the one that shipped with the cooler. Very loud and wonky and IMO heavily under speced for that CPU. The CPU itself is decent and has lots of cores and does the job its stated to do at about 50% the cost of comparable Intel based CPU. Just the cooler no good.

All of the above said we have of course the new AMD chips coming out in less than a month when we should see new reviews. The latest leak on the 16-core "regular" desktop CPU from AMD that is coming out this fall seems really incredible to be honest. If it's true it's going to be a killer CPU that'sv virtually impossible to beat... Well, that or the 12-core...

With the new AMD cpus and the APUs, does Cubase 10 make use of any of these new APU technologies and functionality like Zen+ or DirectX12? I am under the impression that Cubase 10 is more graphics resource hungry but nowhere near what a computer game is; so is having a APU better for Cubase DAW usage and performance or is it still better to have a dedicated video card/graphics chip in the system, or it doesn't really matter because Cubase is not a game anyways? Just curious.

If this is the copper cooler and fan thingy that shipped in the past, those are a piece of crap. I built for my kid a gaming PC with AMD CPU (Piledriver or Bulldozer series, i cant recall now) and I got the one that shipped with the cooler. Very loud and wonky and IMO heavily under speced for that CPU. The CPU itself is decent and has lots of cores and does the job its stated to do at about 50% the cost of comparable Intel based CPU. Just the cooler no good.

Piledriver or Bulldozer!? Lol.. no, new cooler.

I have my Ryzen 1700 (no-"x") running with the stock cooler in an Antec case, no noise. Overclock without doing anything fancy on all cores to 3.7GHz.

With the new AMD cpus and the APUs, does Cubase 10 make use of any of these new APU technologies and functionality like Zen+ or DirectX12? I am under the impression that Cubase 10 is more graphics resource hungry but nowhere near what a computer game is; so is having a APU better for Cubase DAW usage and performance or is it still better to have a dedicated video card/graphics chip in the system, or it doesn't really matter because Cubase is not a game anyways? Just curious.

As far as I understand it for the GUI a gpu is a gpu, regardless of whether it's integrated (in an APU) or dedicated (in card). In other words they should provide a certain performance for the GUI based on the specs and should provide certain outputs. I don't know of any decent DAW that currently uses graphic processors for any type of audio processing.

The one thing to remember though is that because both CPUs and APUs for consumers use the same socket it means they're the same size, and because the gpu now takes up some of the space in an APU we should expect to see fewer CPU cores in APUs, i.e. less actual audio performance - all else being equal. On top of that the AMD APUs seem to have been targeted towards more of a value-segment of the market and seem to have been coming out on the market quite a bit later.

So I would probably steer clear of APUs for a powerful DAW at least... Although it surely depends on how we define "powerful" and what type of work we're going to do